the writings-4-第21部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！



Before　this　I　reminded　him　that　at　Galesburgh　he　said　the　judges　had

expressly　declared　the　contrary；　and　you　remember　that　in　my　Opening

speech　I　told　him　I　had　the　book　containing　that　decision　here；　and　I

would　thank　him　to　lay　his　finger　on　the　place　where　any　such　thing

was　said。　　He　has　occupied　his　hour　and　a　half；　and　he　has　not

ventured　to　try　to　sustain　his　assertion。　　He　never　will。　　But　he　is

desirous　of　knowing　how　we　are　going　to　reverse　that　Dred　Scott

decision。　　Judge　Douglas　ought　to　know　how。　　Did　not　he　and　his

political　friends　find　a　way　to　reverse　the　decision　of　that　same

court　in　favor　of　the　constitutionality　of　the　National　Bank？　　Didn't

they　find　a　way　to　do　it　so　effectually　that　they　have　reversed　it　as

completely　as　any　decision　ever　was　reversed；　so　far　as　its　practical

operation　is　concerned？



And　let　me　ask　you；　did　n't　Judge　Douglas　find　a　way　to　reverse　the

decision　of　our　Supreme　Court　when　it　decided　that　Carlin's　father

old　Governor　Carlin　had　not　the　constitutional　power　to　remove　a

Secretary　of　State？　　Did　he　not　appeal　to　the　〃MOBS；〃　as　he　calls

them？　　Did　he　not　make　speeches　in　the　lobby　to　show　how　villainous

that　decision　was；　and　how　it　ought　to　be　overthrown？　　Did　he　not

succeed；　too；　in　getting　an　act　passed　by　the　Legislature　to　have　it

overthrown？　　And　did　n't　he　himself　sit　down　on　that　bench　as　one　of

the　five　added　judges；　who　were　to　overslaugh　the　four　old　ones；

getting　his　name　of　〃judge〃　in　that　way；　and　no　other？　　If　there　is　a

villainy　in　using　disrespect　or　making　opposition　to　Supreme　Court

decisions；　I　commend　it　to　Judge　Douglas's　earnest　consideration。　　I

know　of　no　man　in　the　State　of　Illinois　who　ought　to　know　so　well

about　how　much　villainy　it　takes　to　oppose　a　decision　of　the　Supreme

Court　as　our　honorable　friend　Stephen　A。　　Douglas。



Judge　Douglas　also　makes　the　declaration　that　I　say　the　Democrats　are

bound　by　the　Dred　Scott　decision；　while　the　Republicans　are　not。　　In

the　sense　in　which　he　argues；　I　never　said　it；　but　I　will　tell　you

what　I　have　said　and　what　I　do　not　hesitate　to　repeat　to…day。　　I　have

said　that　as　the　Democrats　believe　that　decision　to　be　correct；　and

that　the　extension　of　slavery　is　affirmed　in　the　National

Constitution；　they　are　bound　to　support　it　as　such；　and　I　will　tell

you　here　that　General　Jackson　once　said　each　man　was　bound　to　support

the　Constitution　〃as　he　understood　it。〃　　Now；　Judge　Douglas

understands　the　Constitution　according　to　the　Dred　Scott　decision；

and　he　is　bound　to　support　it　as　he　understands　it。　　I　understand　it

another　way；　and　therefore　I　am　bound　to　support　it　in　the　way　in

which　I　understand　it。　　And　as　Judge　Douglas　believes　that　decision

to　be　correct；　I　will　remake　that　argument　if　I　have　time　to　do　so。

Let　me　talk　to　some　gentleman　down　there　among　you　who　looks　me　in

the　face。　　We　will　say　you　are　a　member　of　the　Territorial

Legislature；　and；　like　Judge　Douglas；　you　believe　that　the　right　to

take　and　hold　slaves　there　is　a　constitutional　right　The　first　thing

you　do　is　to　swear　you　will　support　the　Constitution1；　and　all　rights

guaranteed　therein；　that　you　will；　whenever　your　neighbor　needs　your

legislation　to　support　his　constitutional　rights；　not　withhold　that

legislation。　　If　you　withhold　that　necessary　legislation　for　the

support　of　the　Constitution　and　constitutional　rights；　do　you　not

commit　perjury？　　I　ask　every　sensible　man　if　that　is　not　so？　　That　is

undoubtedly　just　so；　say　what　you　please。　　Now；　that　is　precisely

what　Judge　Douglas　says；　that　this　is　a　constitutional　right。　　Does

the　Judge　mean　to　say　that　the　Territorial　Legislature　in　legislating

may；　by　withholding　necessary　laws；　or　by　passing　unfriendly　laws；

nullify　that　constitutional　right？　　Does　he　mean　to　say　that？　　Does

he　mean　to　ignore　the　proposition　so　long　and　well　established　in

law；　that　what　you　cannot　do　directly；　you　cannot　do　indirectly？

Does　he　mean　that？　　The　truth　about　the　matter　is　this：　Judge　Douglas

has　sung　paeans　to　his　〃Popular　Sovereignty〃　doctrine　until　his

Supreme　Court；　co…operating　with　him；　has　squatted　his　Squatter

Sovereignty　out。　　But　he　will　keep　up　this　species　of　humbuggery

about　Squatter　Sovereignty。　　He　has　at　last　invented　this　sort　of

do…nothing　sovereignty；that　the　people　may　exclude　slavery　by　a

sort　of　〃sovereignty〃　that　is　exercised　by　doing　nothing　at　all。　　Is

not　that　running　his　Popular　Sovereignty　down　awfully？　　Has　it　not

got　down　as　thin　as　the　homeopathic　soup　that　was　made　by　boiling　the

shadow　of　a　pigeon　that　had　starved　to　death？　　But　at　last；　when　it

is　brought　to　the　test　of　close　reasoning；　there　is　not　even　that

thin　decoction　of　it　left。　　It　is　a　presumption　impossible　in　the

domain　of　thought。　　It　is　precisely　no　other　than　the　putting　of　that

most　unphilosophical　proposition；　that　two　bodies　can　occupy　the　same

space　at　the　same　time。　　The　Dred　Scott　decision　covers　the　whole

ground；　and　while　it　occupies　it；　there　is　no　room　even　for　the

shadow　of　a　starved　pigeon　to　occupy　the　same　ground。



Judge　Douglas；　in　reply　to　what　I　have　said　about　having　upon　a

previous　occasion　made　the　speech　at　Ottawa　as　the　one　he　took　an

extract　from　at　Charleston；　says　it　only　shows　that　I　practiced　the

deception　twice。　　Now；　my　friends；　are　any　of　you　obtuse　enough　to

swallow　that？　　Judge　Douglas　had　said　I　had　made　a　speech　at

Charleston　that　I　would　not　make　up　north；　and　I　turned　around　and

answered　him　by　showing　I　had　made　that　same　speech　up　north；had

made　it　at　Ottawa；　made　it　in　his　hearing；　made　it　in　the　Abolition

District；in　Lovejoy's　District；in　the　personal　presence　of

Lovejoy　himself；in　the　same　atmosphere　exactly　in　which　I　had　made

my　Chicago　speech；　of　which　he　complains　so　much。



Now；　in　relation　to　my　not　having　said　anything　about　the　quotation

from　the　Chicago　speech：　he　thinks　that　is　a　terrible　subject　for　me

to　handle。　　Why；　gentlemen；　I　can　show　you　that　the　substance　of　the

Chicago　speech　I　delivered　two　years　ago　in　〃Egypt；〃　as　he　calls　it。

It　was　down　at　Springfield。　　That　speech　is　here　in　this　book；　and　I

could　turn　to　it　and　read　it　to　you　but　for　the　lack　of　time。　　I　have

not　now　the　time　to　read　it。　　＇〃Read　it；　read　it。〃＇　No；　gentlemen；　I

am　obliged　to　use　discretion　in　disposing　most　advantageously　of　my

brief　time。　　The　Judge　has　taken　great　exception　to　my　adopting　the

heretical　statement　in　the　Declaration　of　Independence；　that　〃all　men

are　created　equal；〃　and　he　has　a　great　deal　to　say　about　negro

equality。　　I　want　to　say　that　in　sometimes　alluding　to　the

Declaration　of　Independence；　I　have　only　uttered　the　sentiments　that

Henry　Clay　used　to　hold。　　Allow　me　to　occupy　your　time　a　moment　with

what　he　said。　　Mr。　Clay　was　at　one　time　called　upon　in　Indiana；　and

in　a　way　that　I　suppose　was　very　insulting；　to　liberate　his　slaves；

and　he　made　a　written　reply　to　that　application；　and　one　portion　of

it　is　in　these　words：



〃What　is　the　foundati